2025:HHC:35993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 97 of 2022 Decided on : 29.10.2025 Shri Yashpal alias Jaspal …Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamal Dei and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Mohinder Verma and Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Y.P. Sood and Praveen Chauhan, Advocates. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.12.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Rohru, H.P., in terms whereof, application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for stay of the Civil Suit, was dismissed. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35993 having perused the order under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that whereas the earlier suit titled Smt. Prema Devi and others Vs. Hardyal and others, is qua declaration that the gift deed executed on 16.03.2017 be declared as null and void and further for declaration that partition proceedings concluded by the Authority dated 30.12.2006 and instrument of partition prepared subsequently, be declared as bad in law, the subsequent suit titled Smt. Kamal Dei and others Vs. Yash Pal alias Jaspal and others is only for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from causing interference upon the suit land. 3. Neither the suits are between the same parties for the reason that the plaintiff in the subsequent suit is just a proforma defendant in the earlier suit, nor the matter in issue in the first civil suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application filed under Section 10 of the CPC, are not liable to be interfered with. 4. However, at this stage, as prayed for, though this Court is not interfering with the impugned order but is ordering 3 2025:HHC:35993 that as far as two suits are concerned, they are not to be clubbed by the Trial Court but are to be tried simultaneously and be listed before one Judge only. It is clarified that separate trial is to be held in both the cases and endeavour be made to decide both the cases simultaneously. 5. This petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 29, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)